Downtown Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2013

DOWNTOWN PLAN

JULY 2014

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT

Cover photo of downtown Powell Street by Ray Smith https://www.flickr.com/photos/15132846@N00/8330126381

2013 SUMMARY & INFOGRAPHIC ii INTRODUCTION 01 The Downtown Plan 01 Report Structure 01 Data Sources 02 PART 1: COMMERCIAL SPACE, EMPLOYMENT, AND REVENUE TRENDS

03

Commercial Space 03 Employment 06 Revenue 07 PART 2: DOWNTOWN SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

09

Housing 09 Transportation 11 Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) & Public Art

14

TABLES Table 1: Commercial Project Pipeline

03

Table 2: Existing Office Space 04 Table 3: Office Vacancy 05 Table 4: Retail Vacancy 05

Table of Contents

Table 5: Hotel Occupancy and Rate

05

Table 6: Employment -- Citywide 06 Table 7: Employment -- Downtown C-3 Zone

06

Table 8: Business Taxes 08 Table 9: Property Taxes 08 Table 10: Sales and Use Taxes

08

Table 11: Hotel Room Tax 08 Table 12: Net Housing Change: Citywide

09

Table 13: Net Housing Change: Downtown

09

Table 14: Residential Project Pipeline

10

Table 15: Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees Collected

10

Table 16: Net Parking Change -- Downtown C-3 Zone

11

Table 17: Local and Regional Transit Ridership

11

Table 18: Average Vehicle Occupancy

13

Table 19: Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) Collections

13

Table 20: Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) & Public Art

14

MAPS Map 1. Downtown C-3 Zone and Greater Downtown area

02

Map 2. C-3 Zone and corresponding Census Tracts

13

2013 Summary & Infographic Downtown San Francisco continued to be a resilient district for San Francisco and the region in 2013, largely because of Downtown Plan polices.

Adopted in 1985, these policies guide land use decisions to create the physical form and pattern of a vibrant, compact, pedestrian-oriented, livable, and vital downtown.

The Downtown Plan directed dense employment growth to the C-3 district, generally along both sides of Market Street from the Embarcadero to Van Ness Avenue. In order to accommodate this growth, the Plan contains a series of goals, policies and targets designed to ensure that new development is supported with the infrastructure and services required of great places, pays its way, and generates a net benefit for the city.

As evidenced by rebounding development, declining vacancy rates, increasing rents, and growing employment, tax revenue and use fees, the city’s economy continues to recover, and Downtown appears to be sharing in that recovery.

Downtown continues to have the majority of San Francisco’s office and hotel jobs, and overall employment in the Downtown area grew by approximately 5% over the previous year.

The housing and transportation goals are among the most important in the Downtown Plan. The Plan states that without sufficient and appropriate housing to serve new commercial development, local housing costs would increase, thereby compromising the vitality of downtown. The Plan also states that if employment growth increases the number of cars downtown, thereby significantly increasing traffic, the area’s attractiveness and livability could be affected adversely. As a result, the Plan contains various targets relating to these policy issues.

ii

After a significant downturn due to the global financial crisis, housing production in the city has rebounded from less than 270 net new units in 2011 to just under 2,000 in 2013. Roughly a quarter of these new housing units were located in the Downtown C-3 district. This trend, along with the potential addition of thousands of new units of housing Downtown (almost 9,000 units in the current pipeline), will continue to increase the Downtown residential population and vitality of the district.

Available transportation data suggests that transit use for commuting has grown along with jobs in the Downtown, and that transit continues to serve a high proportion of trips for downtown workers and residents. The data also indicates that ridesharing has declined, but this could be due to a larger nationwide trend, an increase in the use of other forms of transportation, or an increase in the number of individuals working from home.

By most measures, the San Francisco Downtown Plan has been a success. It guided the creation of one of the most successful core areas of any American city. The vitality, job and housing density, retail activity and overall character of the downtown have improved dramatically. The Planning Department will continue to monitor these trends so that land use policy adjustments can be made as required to maintain and enhance a successful Downtown and Plan and avoid unintended consequences.

The annual changes in Downtown land use, employment, and transportation trends are summarized on the following pages (downtown’s share of citywide total is listed in red when applicable).

KEY: PARTCHART 1:COLORCommercial

Bay Area

Citywide

Downtown

Part 1. Commercial Sp

EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE

Downtown share of Citywide

Downtown share of Citywide

Office

Office

Square feet

Office Va

Net Square feet

32%

3,700,000 10,300,000

SEE TABLE 1

SEE TABLE 2

64%

72,400,000 112,500,000

VACANCY

20

0

Retail

Square feet

16%

8,800,000 56,100,000

Hotel

Rooms

20,000 33,600

60%

Retail

Net Square feet

19% TOTAL

32%

40

Retail Va

500,000 2,600,000

20

0

40

Office Re

Net Square feet

$52.21

5,100,000 16,100,000

215 hotels Citywide

Hotel

DOWNTOWN C3 ZONE

DOWNTOWN C3 ZONE

2013 DOWNTOWN PLAN ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO

CHART COLOR KEY: Downtown

Citywide

Bay Area

CHART COLOR KEY: Downtown

Citywide

Bay Area

Part 1. Commercial Space, Emp DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE

iii

ommercial Space, Employment, and Revenue Trends PART 1: Commercial (cont’d) VACANCY

EMPLOYMENT (JOBS)

SEE TABLES 6 & 7

T PIPELINE

Downtown share of Citywide

Office Vacancy

re feet

BAY AREA 0

re feet

8.8% 8.2% 11.9%

CITWIDE

20

40

60

80

SEE TABLE 3

SEE TABLE 1

000 000

60

80

100

5.7% 4.5%

SEE TABLE 4

40

$52.21

000 000

30,000 108,000

28%

Sales &

/ SQUARE FOOT

11,600 17,000

5% 67%

Hotel

$130,2

2% 4%

Hotel T

TOTAL JOBS

OCCUPANCY

$214

AVERAGE RATE / ROOM

SEE TABLE 5

83%

39%

Business Taxes

11%

236,000 599,000

$307,0

DOWNTOWN C3 ZONE

ANNU

Property Taxes

$1,400,000,000 SAN FRANCISCO

4%

Hotel Room Tax

Sales & Use Taxes

$307,000,000

68%

SEE TABLE 11

7%

SEE TABLE 10

$130,200,000

5% 5%

SEE TABLE 9

$534,700,000

SEE TABLE 8

REVENUE

$1,400

8% 6%

Hotel Jobs

Office Rent

re feet

Propert

Retail Jobs CITWIDE

20

$534,7

5% 5%

100

DOWNTOWN

0

145,000 238,000

61%

Retail Vacancy

000 000

Busines

Office Jobs DOWNTOWN

REVENUE

CHART COLOR KEY: Downtown

iv

Citywide

Bay Area

Par

Part 2. Downtown Support Infrastructure PART 2: Infrastructure

Net units

486 1,960

Downtown Transit Boardings (Average Weekday)

189,000

34% 23% 3% 31% 8% 1%

2%

682,600

SEE TABLE 14

AT DOWNTOWN BART STATIONS

128,800

Units

8,780 50,400

8%

392,300 7%

13%

52,600 12%

AT 4TH & KING STATION

12,200 SEE TABLE 16

DOWNTOWN PARKING SPACES Net New Spaces

605

P

Citywide

PEAK-PERIOD TRIPS TO/FROM DOWNTOWN

RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE PROJECTS

17%

MODE SP C-3 RESI 2012

153% 49%

Downtown % of Citywide

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

SEE TABLE 17

SEE TABLES 12 & 13

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

DOWNTOWN C3 ZONE

TRANSIT TRANSBAY LINES

192,500 13,9002013 20%DOWNTOWN PLAN ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY

Total

$9,900

8%

SAN FRANCISCO

CHART COLOR KEY: Downtown

Citywide

Bay Area

Part 1. Commercial Space, E DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

v

e

PART 2: Infrastructure (cont’d) AVERAGE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY (WORKERS)

C-3 WORKERS

SEE TABLE 18

SEE TABLE 17

MODE SPLIT C-3 RESIDENTS

ide 2012

Mode

7%

2010

51% 37% 2% 7% 1% 3%

TRANSIT CAR BIKE WALK WORK AT HOME OTHER

1.17 1.18

2012

DOWNTOWN C-3 CITYWIDE

PRIVATELY-OWNED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (POPOS) & ART POPOS

2012

2010

82 86

2%

Total

$9,900,000

8%

SEE TABLE 19

TRANSIT IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FEE

na 1.15

SEE TABLE 20

34% 23% 3% 31% 8% 1%

2010

Public Art

DOWNTOWN CITYWIDE

23 na

TRANSIT Total

$9,900

JOBS-HO Total

$5,700 vi

Introduction The Downtown Plan The Downtown Plan’s central premise is that a compact, walkable, and transit oriented downtown will create a lively and attractive center for the city and the region.

The Plan also capitalizes on the city’s core assets, including its transit infrastructure, visitor economy, and vibrant diversity.

The Plan’s vision is to create a vibrant district known the world over as a center of ideas, services, and trade, and as a place rich in human experience - characteristics that are true of all great cities. The essential components of such places are a compact mix of activities, historical values, distinctive architecture, and urban form that engenders the special excitement of a world city. To achieve this vision, the Plan’s objectives and policies guide land use decisions to create the physical form and pattern of a livable, compact, and pedestrianoriented downtown.

The Downtown Plan emerged from growing public awareness during the 1970s that development threatened the essential character of downtown San Francisco. At issue is a potential conflict between civic objectives to foster a vital economy on the one hand and those aimed at forming the urban patterns, structures, and unique physical identity of a vibrant downtown on the other hand. The Downtown Plan supports land use decisions that create the conditions for a great place and a vital economy.

The Downtown Plan is one Area Plan of the General Plan. The Downtown area is traditionally defined as the C-3-zoned district (see Map 1). Some of the Plan’s policies refer to a less precisely defined area germane to housing and transportation policies that have wider effects geographically. Some policies, such as those involving net new housing units, are citywide goals.

The Downtown Plan guides development decisions and public policy actions; it creates programs designed to improve services and infrastructure. When the Board of Supervisors approved the Downtown Plan in 1985, the Board also required that the Planning Department prepare monitoring reports periodically to track performance and make adjustments if required. This document is one such report as described below.

Report Structure This Downtown Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2013 summarizes business and development trends affecting downtown San Francisco as required by SF Administrative Code, Chapter 10E. The report covers the 2013 calendar year or fiscal years 2012-13 or 2013-14 depending on data available. This annual report notes changes in the amount of commercial space, employment, housing production, parking supply, collection and use of fees and other revenues that occurred over the year related to the objectives of the Downtown Plan and statutory monitoring requirements.

Part 1 of this report, “Commercial Space, Employment and Revenue Trends,” highlights the growth that the Downtown Plan enabled, and discusses the production of new commercial space, employment activity, and recent sales tax revenues on both a citywide and Downtown basis. Part 2, “Downtown Support Infrastructure,” reviews housing, transportation, Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) and Public Art – key elements supporting the functioning of the Downtown core.

The 25-year report, 25 Years: Downtown Plan Monitoring Report 1985-2009, contains more detailed information and assessment. Previous annual and five-year reports are available on the Department’s web site.1

1 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1663#dag

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

1

Fort Mason

S AN

S

E

BAY BA

ST R

T

S

T

ST

D ST

IO

N

W

AR

D

H

IS

O

N

ST

B

R

AN

N

AN

ST

TO

W

N

SE

N

D

ST AT&T Park

China Basin

05 TH

M

ST

O

ST

TH

0

ST

TH ST

B

R

YA

N

T

0.5 Mile

ST

ST

03RD ST

ST

R

TH

LS

ST

10

T

GUER RERO ST

M

KE

TH

AR

07

FO

12

ST

ST

S

OA K ST

AR

B

D

R

IS

H

O

06

M

FE LL ST

Buena Vista Park

Y

N

03

TH

RO ST

ST

S

T

Other Downtown

80 0 South Park

04

ST

City Hall

C-3 Zoning District

02

Yerba Buena Gardens

LA GU NA

DI VI SA DE

GR OV E

A

ST

A

E

E AL BE

M

BL VD

K

Moscone Center

Alamo Square

B

O

Union Square

GE AR Y

ER

Rincon Park

ST

BUSH ST

R

AD

ON ST

W OT H

ST

LE AV EN

RN IA CA LI FO

SS AV E VA N NE

Alta Plaza Park

Ferry Building Plaza

ST OC KT

ST OA DW AY

ID

RC

ST

GTON ST

WASHIN

BR

80

EM

ST

AV

ST

GO UG H

BU

E ST

M

FR A N CIS CO

E

LU

SA NS OM

O

OM ER Y

TA YL OR

RD ST

M ON TG

C LA RK IN

LO M BA

UT ST

G

CH ES TN

16TH ST

28 280

Central Basin

17TH ST

Map 1.

Greater Downtown

Data Sources This annual report includes information from the Department’s Housing Inventory, Commerce and Industry Inventory, and Pipeline Quarterly Report. It also includes information from many other sources, including the state Employment and Development Department (EDD), the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Dun and Bradstreet business data, Cassidy Turley Research Services, Cushman & Wakefield Research Services, and information gathered from the SF Department of Building Inspection, and the SF Office of the Controller.

2

PART 1: Commercial Space, Employment, & Revenue Trends Originally, the Downtown Plan guided commercial development and most new office growth in San Francisco to the Downtown C-3 District straddling Market Street (see Map 1). The Plan also expanded new commercial development to the South of Market (SoMa). The Plan’s annual limit on new office space, institutionalized by a voter initiative passed in 1986, helped to manage the pace of new office development and reduce speculation and boombust land use development issues.

Recent planning south of Market Street encourages office, residential density, and new mixed-use neighborhoods to the south of the Downtown C-3 District.

The Transit Center District Plan, which overlaps the C-3 District, also includes some office and residential development guidelines. The Central SoMa Plan, part of which also overlaps the C-3 district, is currently in draft form and includes a substantial amount of new capacity for office space. Mission Bay and Candlestick Point are two areas where more recent planning has directed substantial office development.

The Rincon Hill Plan directs high density housing south of the C-3 district. The Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans (ENAPs) include rezoning in the southeast quadrant of the city to accommodate the majority of non-downtown/non-high-rise office growth. In addi-

tion, the ENAPs will establish new mixed-use residential neighborhoods encompassing light industrial and production-distribution-repair, retail, smaller offices, and institutional uses. The Eastern Neighborhoods will not be locations for dense, high-rise office developments. As a result, future high-rise office development will remain concentrated in and around the Downtown Plan Area.

Commercial Space Pipeline Development Projects

As of the fourth quarter of 2013, there were over 850 projects in the citywide development project “pipeline.”1 Three-quarters of the projects (74%) were exclusively residential; roughly one-fifth (17%) were mixed-use with both residential and commercial components. The remaining eight percent (8%) of the projects were exclusively commercial (office, retail/ entertainment, hotel, or production, distribution and repair).

In total, the commercial pipeline projects would add 16.1 million square feet (msf ) of commercial space (Table 1). This would include 10.3 msf of office space and 2.6 msf of retail space added to San Francisco’s existing 112 msf of office space and 56 msf of retail space.2 1 Planning Department, Pipeline Report, Quarter 4, 2013.

2 CoStar Group, Office Report and Retail Report, Quarter 1, 2011. No new projects have been completed (as of June 2012).

Table 1.

Commercial Project Pipeline

Area C-3 District* Other Downtown*

Total

%

Office

%

Retail

%

5,135,251

32%

3,658,822

36%

507,522

19%

449,627

3%

512,223

5%

88,324

3%

Candlestick

4,110,000

25%

2,756,250

27%

750,000

29%

Mission Bay

2,445,499

15%

637,499

6%

7,500

0%

Rest of City

4,000,329

25%

2,722,748

32%

1,255,186

45%

16,140,706

100%

10,287,542

100%

2,608,532

100%

TOTAL *See Map 1.

Source: Planning Department, Pipeline Report, Quarter 4, 2013

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

3

The Downtown C-3 area (Table 1) accounts for about 5.1 million sf, or 32% of proposed commercial space in the pipeline. The ‘Other Downtown’ area is composed of the East Soma and Rincon Hill districts adjacent to and south of the C-3 zone, which would add almost 450,000 sf of the pipeline commercial space. Thus the Greater Downtown area accounts for just over a third of projected pipeline commercial development (35%). Candlestick Point and Mission Bay would add about 4.1 msf (25%) and 2.4 msf (15%), respectively.

The rest of the city would receive about 4 msf of commercial development, or 25% of the pipeline project total. The vast majority of this development is slated for neighborhoods adjacent to downtown (other parts of SOMA and Showplace Square/Potrero Hill). The non-residential commercial projects include office, retail, visitor (hotel and entertainment), productiondistribution-repair (PDR), and cultural-institutionaleducational (CIE) land uses.

Office Space

Of the total 16.1 msf of commercial space in the pipeline, 64% are office land uses and 25% are retail. About 2.7 msf (17%) of pipeline development are under construction. Another 16% of the pipeline projects have received building permit approval or have been issued a permit (3.8 msf ), and should begin construction soon.

The majority of the pipeline projects (67%) are still in the early stages of approval, with Planning applications filed (18%) or approved (21%), and building permits filed but not yet approved with the Department of Building Inspection (28%).

A total of 7.2 msf was leased in 2013, surpassing the 10-year average of 5.8 msf. Market absorption of existing space in new leases amounted to 1.1 msf. Much of this activity is due to continued technology sector growth, with companies such as Google, Demandforce and Neustar either expanding existing leases or relocating into the downtown area. However, the banking and professional services sectors saw leasing growth as well.3

Projects under construction are typically ready for occupancy within two years. Projects not yet under construction but approved by the Planning Department are usually available for occupancy within two to four years. Projects filed for planning approval take two to four or more years to complete, depending on complexity.

Close to two-thirds of the city’s office space is located in the Downtown C-3 District (Table 2). At 343 acres (or slightly more than half a square mile), the district represents one of the densest concentrations of office space in the country.

Table 2.

Existing Office Space

Area San Francisco C-3 District

Square Feet 112,500,000 72,400,000

% office in C-3 District

64%

Source: Costar Group, SF Planning.

San Francisco’s office vacancy rate declined to 8.2% at the end of 2013, after peaking at over 20% in 2002 (Table 3). Citywide office vacancy is at its lowest rate since the end of 2000.

There is approximately 3.7 million net square feet (nsf ) of office space in the project pipeline for the Downtown C-3 District (Table 1). In the Greater Downtown Area4 there is approximately 512,000 nsf of office development in the pipeline.

By year end 2013, Downtown office rents increased to an average of $53.97 per square foot, up 5% from last year, and up 23% from $42.50 per square foot in 2010.5 A strong rental market is expected to continue in 2014.

3 Cushman & Wakefield, MarketBeat, Office Snapshot, San Francisco, Q4 2013.

4 Includes East SoMa and Rincon Hill.

5 Cushman & Wakefield, MarketBeat, Office Snapshot, San Francisco, Q4 2012 and 2013.

Rates are for all building classes, gross rental rate, full service.

4

Table 3.

Office Vacancy

Area

2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012-13

11.0%

8.9%

8.2%

-0.7 pts

Downtown Financial District

10.7%

8.7%

8.8%

0.1 pts

Other Downtown*

11.4%

6.6%

6.5%

-0.1 pts

13.8%

13.4%

11.9%

-1.6 pts

San Francisco

Bay Area

* Includes Jackson Square, South Beach, Union Square, and Yerba Buena.

Source: Cassidy Turley, Office Market Snapshot, San Francisco, Fourth Quarter, 2013.

Table 4.

Retail Vacancy

Area

2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012-13

San Francisco

5.1%

4.3%

4.5%

0.2 pts

Downtown*

6.7%

6.0%

5.7%

-0.3 pts

* Labeled as “City Center.” Includes the Union Square area, the retail core of the C-3 zone.

Source: Terranomics, San Francisco County, Shopping Centers Report, Q4 2013.

Table 5.

Hotel Occupancy and Rate

Average Occupancy Average Daily Room Rate

2011

2012

2013

79.0%

80.5%

83.0%

$155.00

$175.00

$213.81

Source: Cushman & Wakefield, MarketBeat Retail Snapshot, San Francisco, Q4 2013.

Retail Space

Hotel Space

The Downtown C-3 Area contains about 16% (8.7 msf ) of San Francisco’s 56 msf of retail space, with about 1.4 msf in the Downtown Core.6 San Francisco’s downtown is the Bay Area’s preeminent retail hub, and it serves local, regional, and visitor shopping needs.

However, the majority of retail space in San Francisco is outside the downtown area, mostly along the city’s many neighborhood commercial streets and shopping areas.

San Francisco has over 215 hotels with a total of 33,750 hotel rooms.7 Approximately 20,000 (60%) of these rooms are located within walking distance of the Moscone Convention Center. Only one hotel opened in 2013, Hotel Zetta, on 5th Street with 116 rooms.

Another 174 room hotel is under construction at 943 Mission Street as of June 2014.

As shown in Table 4 above, the retail vacancy rate for the Downtown C-3 Area at the end of 2013 was 5.7%, higher than the citywide average of 4.5%. Compared to 2012, vacancy rates declined for the Downtown C-3 area and citywide from 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively.

Both hotel occupancy and average daily rates increased in 2013 (Table 5). Average hotel occupancy increased to about 83%, up from 79% two years ago. Average daily room rates increased to $214 per room compared to $175 in 2012.

There is approximately 560,000 net sf (nsf ) of retail space in the development pipeline for the Downtown C-3 area, with another 2 mnsf anticipated for the rest of the city, for a total of 2.6 mnsf citywide. However, the majority of these pipeline projects are in the early stages of permitting, with only about 10,000 sf under construction in the C-3 area and about 61,300 nsf citywide.

6 Co-Star, Retail Report, San Francisco Retail Market, 1st Quarter 2011. The Downtown Core is composed of the traditional Financial District north and south of Market Street, while the larger C-3 area adds Union Square, Yerba Buena, and the Civic Center areas.

7 San Francisco Travel Association (www.sanfrancisco.travel/research/), June 20, 2013. Room figures from September 2012 survey.

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

5

Employment San Francisco employment grew almost 5% in 2013, by approximately 27,130 jobs. As of the first quarter of 2013, San Francisco had approximately 599,360 jobs (Table 6). Employment grew across all land uses, though Private Households show a steep drop due to a change in the way the US Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies certain home-based jobs. Many jobs previously classified as ‘Private Households’ were moved into the ‘Cultural, Insitutional, Educational (CIE) category in 2013.8 Downtown employment grew at roughly the same rate as the city overall. As of the first quarter of 2013, approximately 39% of all San Francisco employment was located in the Downtown C-3 zone. The majority of the city’s office jobs (61%) and hotel jobs (67%) continue to be located Downtown.

Office Employment

The downtown Financial District remains the center of office employment in San Francisco. As of the first quarter of 2013, there were about 238,400 office jobs in San Francisco (Table 6). Of these jobs, about 144,500 were located in the Downtown C-3 District (Table 7), or 61% of total office employment citywide.

Downtown office employment grew almost 5% from 2012, or by about 6,600 jobs. Downtown San Francisco maintains the densest concentration of office jobs in the region, including financial, legal, and other specialized business services. Many of these jobs continue to be in the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors.

8 For more information on regional trends, business formation and relocation see the Commerce and Industry Inventory at http://www.sfplanning.org.

Table 6. Employment - Citywide 2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012 - 2013

Office

214,476

228,057

238,394

4.5%

Retail

97,373

101,845

107,740

5.8%

Production, Distribution, Repair (PDR)

71,077

73,453

76,224

3.8%

Hotel (& Entertainment)

17,313

16,683

17,369

4.1%

128,248

131,482

155,829*

18.5%*

20,857

20,714

3,802*

-81.6%*

549,344

572,234

599,359

4.7%

Land Use

Cultural, Institutional, Educational (CIE) Private Households TOTAL

* Starting in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reclassified “In-home supportive services” jobs from Private Households to CIE. Note: variations from other published employment numbers are due to rounding and EDD confidentiality requirements).

Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), Q1 2011, Q1 2012 and Q1 2013.

Table 7. Employment - Downtown C-3 Zone 2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012 - 2013

C-3 Share of SF Employment 2013

Office

139,162

137,875

144,496

4.8%

61%

Retail

27,484

28,019

30,286

8.1%

28%

Production, Distribution, Repair (PDR)

18,505

20,054

21,380

6.6%

28%

Hotel

12,077

11,339

11,611

2.4%

67%

Cultural, Institutional, Educational (CIE)

33,571

25,384

28,037

10.5%

18%

2,676

1,935

578

-70.1%

15.2%

233,475

224,606

236,388

5.2%

39%

Land Use

Private Households TOTAL

* Starting in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reclassified “In-home supportive services” jobs from Private Households to CIE. Note: variations from other published employment numbers are due to rounding and EDD confidentiality requirements).

Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), Q1 2011, Q1 2012 and Q1 2013.

6

Retail Employment

San Francisco’s high concentration of regional-serving retail establishments continue to be a primary destination offering not only goods and services, but a unique urban experience.

As of the first quarter of 2013, there were 107,740 retail jobs in San Francisco (Table 6). About 30,290 (28%) of these jobs could be found in the C-3 District (Table 7). This is roughly the same share of retail jobs reported in 2012.

Hotel Employment

The majority of hotel jobs are located downtown. As of the first quarter of 2013, there were approximately 17,370 hotel jobs in the city. About 11,600 (67%) of these jobs were in the C-3 District.

Revenue This section reports tax revenues from business taxes (including registration and payroll), property taxes (including transfer tax and annual tax), sales and use taxes, and the hotel tax for the 2013-2014 fiscal year (FY).9 The revenue information reported reflects deposits to the City’s general fund, rather than the total amount of all revenues the City received, and is reported in nominal dollars.10 In general, the FY 2013-14 budget assumed continued moderate recovery in tax revenues throughout the fiscal year. Tax revenues projected to recover beyond budgeted levels include property, sales, and hotel taxes.11 Business Taxes

Business tax revenue (Table 8) in FY 2013-14 is estimated at $534.7 million, up 12% from $479.7 million in FY 2012-13. In November 2012, San Francisco voters approved the Gross Receipts Tax and Business Registration Fees Ordinance (Proposition E), which introduced major changes to the way businesses are taxed in the city. Starting January 1, 2014, the City will now collect a Gross Receipts tax, and will phase out the existing Payroll tax over several years. In this fiscal year, total business tax revenue is comprised of business payroll tax, registration tax, gross receipts tax, and administrative office tax.

Business payroll taxes assess the payroll expense of persons and associations engaging in business in San Francisco and continue to represent the vast majority of business taxes collected. This tax imposes a fee on all businesses that employ or contract with one or more employees to perform work or render services within the city. In FY 2013-14, the Controller’s Office estimated that it will collect $467.1 million in payroll taxes, down 0.5% from $469.7 million in FY 2012-13.

Business registration tax is an annual fee assessed for general revenue purposes on all business in the city. The formula for calculating this fee was amended as part of Prop E, resulting in significantly higher collections in FY 13-14. The Controller’s Office estimates that approximately $33.9 million in business registration fees will be collected in FY 2013-14, up 240% from $10 million in FY 2012-13.

Gross receipts and Administrative office taxes are based on a business’s gross receipts from business done in San Francisco, rather than on a business’s payroll expense.

The Controller’s Office estimates that approximately $20.7 million in gross receipts and $12.7 in administrative office taxes will be collected in FY 2013-14.

Property Taxes

Real property taxes (Table 9) are the largest single source of tax revenue for the City. The Controller’s office expects them to increase slightly this fiscal year 2014.12 Together, an estimated $1.4 billion in property related taxes will be collected in FY 2013-14, up 4.1% from $1.35 billion last year.

Real property taxes allocated to the general fund in FY 2013-14 are estimated at $1.17 billion , up 5.6% from $1.11 billion in FY 2012-13 (Table 9).

Property transfer taxes are estimated to decrease slightly during the reporting period. Projected collections for FY 2013-14 are estimated to be about $225.2 million, down 3.2% from $232.7 million in FY 2012-13.

(Table 9). Unlike real property taxes, which are collected annually and based on property valuation assessments, property transfer tax is highly volatile because it is collected only at the time of sale and is based on sales price.

9 Fiscal Year 2013 begins on July 1, 2012 and ends on June 30, 2013.

10 All revenues would include money allocated by law to specific uses and not available for general city services and expenses.

11 City and County of San Francisco, Controller’s Office, FY 2013-14 Nine-Month Budget Status Report, May 13, 2014.

12 Ibid.

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

7

Sales Tax

Hotel Tax

Sales tax revenues (Table 10) fluctuate with economic conditions and reflect consumer confidence and spending. Of the 8.75% sales tax rate, San Francisco receives 1%, with the rest going to the State and other districts. A portion of this revenue is deposited in the City’s general fund with the balance allocated by law for specific programs and services.

The hotel tax rate (Table 11) remained at 14% for the 2012-13 fiscal year reporting period. A substantial portion of this revenue is dedicated to the Moscone Convention Center, grants for the arts, museums, and other visitor amenities with the balance deposited into the City’s general fund.

As shown in Table 10, FY 2013-14 sales tax collections are expected to increase 6.5% to $130.2 million from $122.3 million in FY 2012-13. An estimated 20% of sales tax revenues are collected in the Downtown C-3 zoned area, which continues to account for roughly one-quarter of general retail store sales tax and business to business sales tax.

As shown in Table 11, $307 million in hotel taxes are expected to be collected and deposited into the general fund in fiscal year 2013-14. This represents a 60.8% increase from FY 2012-13, when $190.9 million was collected.

Table 8. Business Taxes Revenue Source ($ Millions) Payroll Registration

FY 2011-12

FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14*

% Change 2013-14

$426.7

$469.7

$467.4

-0.5%

$8.6

$10.0

$33.9

240.0%

Gross Receipts

-

-

$20.7

n/a

Administrative Office

-

-

$12.7

n/a

$435.3

$479.7

$534.7

11.5%

Total

* Estimates from Office of the Controller, FY 2013-14 Nine-Month Budget Status Report, May 13, 2014

Table 9. Property Taxes Revenue Source ($ Millions) Property Tax Property Transfer Tax TOTAL

FY 2011-12

FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14*

% Change 2013-14

$1,059.2

$1,114.1

$1,177.0

5.6%

$233.6

$232.7

$225.2

-3.2%

$1,292.8

$1,346.8

$1,402.2

4.1%

* Estimates from Office of the Controller, FY 2013-14 Nine-Month Budget Status Report, May 13, 2014

Table 10. Sales and Use Taxes Revenue Source ($ Millions) Sales and Use Tax

FY 2011-12

FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14*

% Change 2013-14

$117.1

$122.3

$130.2

6.5%

* Estimates from Office of the Controller, FY 2013-14 Nine-Month Budget Status Report, May 13, 2014

Table 11. Hotel Room Tax Revenue Source ($ Millions) Hotel Room Tax

FY 2011-12

FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14*

% Change 2013-14

$188.7

$182.4

$307.0

68.3%

* Estimates from Office of the Controller, FY 2013-14 Nine-Month Budget Status Report, May 13, 2014

8

PART 2: Downtown Support Infrastructure This section discusses the Downtown Plan’s housing and transportation targets. The Downtown Plan was developed with the assumption that significant employment growth and office development would occur and that this growth must be managed to enhance–not detract from– the Downtown. In the absence of new policies and programs, automobile traffic would continue to grow and important historic buildings located north of Market Street could be lost.

The Plan established a special use district around the Transbay Terminal to shift office construction to that area as a means of reducing further disruption to the financial center north of Market Street. As an incentive to save historic buildings and to shift office development to the planned area south of Market Street, the Plan enabled owners of buildings designated for preservation to sell development rights to developers in the special use district. New commercial development would provide revenue to partially cover the costs of improvements. Specific programs were created to address needs for additional housing, transit, child care and open space, as were specific targets for new housing production and transportation management.

Table 12.

Net Housing Change: Citywide

Change New construction + alterations, conversions - less demolitions Total net change

In December 2010, the Transfer of Development Rights ordinance was amended by the Board of Supervisors to allow eligible owners of historic buildings to sell development rights to any C-3 zoned lot.

Housing Residential Units Completed

Citywide 2013 housing production of about 1,960 net new units is a 49% increase over last year’s production of 1,317 units (Table 12), and is one indicator of the economic recovery. The net change in units accounts for alterations, conversions and demolitions.

In the Downtown area, a total of 486 new units were constructed, 25% of citywide housing production for the year. A further 521 new units were constructed in SoMa, with 953 units produced in the rest of the city (Table 13).

Housing production in 2013 surpassed the Downtown Plan’s annual goal of 1,000 to 1,500 net new housing units citywide.

2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012-13

348

794

2,330

197%

5

650

59

na

-84

-127

-429

na

269

1,317

1,960

49%

2013

% Change 2012-13

* Net change accounts for units gained or lost due to alterations, conversions and demolitions.

Source: SF Planning Department, Housing Inventory.

Table 13.

Net Housing Change: Downtown

Area Downtown

2011

2012

-31

192

486

153%

na

15%

25%

na

21

701

521

-26%

Rest of City

279

424

953

125%

TOTAL

269

1,317

1,960

49%

% of citywide total SoMa*

* Housing Inventory SoMa planning district, excluding C-3.

Source: SF Planning Housing Inventory.

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

9

Residential Pipeline Projects

As of the fourth quarter 2013, the citywide pipeline of projects under construction or seeking planning approval and building permits contained a total of about 50,400 residential units, up 15% from 43,600 units in 2012. The top five areas with the most proposed units are Candlestick, Downtown, Treasure Island, Parkmerced, and Showplace Square (see Table 14).

In Table 14, the Greater Downtown area ranks second in number of proposed units (but first of all areas with typical project proposals and not that of large projectplans), with 8,780 units or 17% of the total. Of those units, 29% are under construction, 27% have an approved or issued building permit, 14% have filed for a building permit, 17% have planning approval, and 13% have filed for planning approval.

The permit status of the proposed units is as follows: 20% are under construction (6,000 units); 21% hold a building permit that has been approved, reinstated, or issued, 38% have filed for a building permit, 12% have planning approval and need to seek a building permit, and 10% have filed for planning approval.

Jobs Housing Linkage Program (JHLP)

Table 14. Residential Project Pipeline (net units) Rank

Area

Units

% Share

1

Candlestick

10,430

21%

2 3

Greater Downtown*

8,780

17%

Treasure Island

7,800

15%

4

Park Merced

5,860

12%

5

Showplace Sq/Potrero

3,590

7%

Rest of city

13,920

28%

TOTAL

50,380

100%

*See Map 1.

Source: Planning Department, Pipeline Report, Quarter 4, 2013.

It should be noted that approximately 24,000 units (just under 50%) are associated with the three large projects that will be built out over a longer period (Candlestick, Treasure Island and Parkmerced). These units have all received planning approval.

The remaining approximately 26,300 units would be expected to be built out under the more typical time frames: two years from beginning construction and two to four years from planning approval. Should they be completed within four years (by 2018), that would be over 5,000 units per year on average, which is twice the maximum annual housing production rate in any of the past 20 years. If production were to follow the city’s historical average production rate of 1,530 units per year, the 26,300 units associated with smaller projects would be expected to be built out over 17 years.

10

Prompted by the Downtown Plan, the City determined that employment growth associated with large office development projects would attract new residents and therefore increase demand for housing. In response, the Office Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) was established in 1985 to require large office developments to contribute to a fund to increase the amount of affordable housing. In 2001, the OAHPP was re-named the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program (JHLP) and revised to require all commercial projects with a net addition of 25,000 gross square feet or more to contribute to the fund.

Due to the decrease in commercial development as a result of the 2008-2009 economic recession, the program collected no revenue from fiscal year 2008 through 2011. This fiscal year (2013-14), $5.7 million was collected (Table 15).

Table 15.

Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees Collected

Fiscal Year

Revenue

2010-11

$0

2011-12

$567,015

2012-13*

$5,717,152

Source: Department of Building Inspection as of May 2013

Transportation This section reports on Downtown Plan transportation targets including an inventory of parking spaces, vehicle occupancy rates, peak period transit ridership, commute mode split, and fees collected by the Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) as required by the Downtown Plan monitoring ordinance.

There are over 25,640 off-street parking spaces in the Downtown C-3 district, about 15% of the 166,520 off-street parking spaces citywide.1 The recently released SFMTA on-street parking census counts roughly 5,300 on-street parking spaces in the C-3 district.2 Peak Period MUNI Transit Ridership

Parking Inventory

Downtown Plan policies discourage new long-term commuter parking facilities (surface lots and garages) in and around the periphery of downtown. No new long-term parking facilities have been built Downtown since Plan adoption, although the supply of off-street parking in new buildings (see Table 16) continues to grow with new development, as allowed under the Planning Code. In 2013, just over 600 net new parking spaces were approved in the downtown C-3 district.

According to available Automatic Passenger Count (APC) data collected by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) in Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 2012-13), the downtown area continues to be a major origin and destination of transit trips within the city. Of the approximately 682,600 total weekday boardings in FY2013, about 189,250 (27%) trips were to or from Downtown during the peak period (7:00 9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm; Table 17).

Regional Transit Ridership

Table 16.

Net Parking Change Downtown C-3 Zone* * Approved projects only

Year

Net Parking

2011

282

2012

0

2013

605

In terms of recent changes to the supply of parking, available information only includes projects approved by the Planning Commission, which likely underestimates the number of spaces added. For example, projects permitted by right under the Planning Code, including those in past redevelopment areas, typically do not require Planning Department approval and are not counted as a result.

Downtown San Francisco’s jobs draw workers from all around the region. One of the goals of the Downtown Plan is to develop transit as the primary mode of transportation to and from Downtown for suburban commuters as well as intra-city commuters.

Ridership continues to grow on many of the regional transit lines that serve Downtown San Francisco. The agencies for which data is available - BART, Caltrain, and AC Transit - all saw increased ridership across their entire networks. Notably, ridership grew faster on the portions of those systems that serve Downtown San Francisco than it did overall (Table 17).

1 SFMTA, Off-Street Parking Census 2011 2 SFMTA, On-Street Parking Census April 2014

Table 17.

Local and Regional Transit Ridership (Average Weekday)

Regional Transit Agency MUNI To/From Downtown (Peak)* BART Downtown Stations* Caltrain 4th and King Station AC Transit Transbay Lines

2011

2012

2013

% Change 2012-13

649,848

679,664

682,582

0.4%

179,961

185,671

189,243

1.9%

345,256

366,565

392,293

7.0%

112,572

119,356

128,862

8.0%

42,354

47,060

52,611

11.8%

9,670

10,786

12,160

12.7%

-

178,042

192,553

8.2%

-

11,545

13,897

20.4%

* Downtown stations include Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell and Civic Center.

Source: BART, Caltrain and AC Transit.

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

11

Downtown Commute Mode Split

Another goal of the Downtown Plan is that transit’s share would increase from 64% when the Plan was adopted in 1984 to 70% by 2000 for all peak period commute trips to and from the Downtown C-3 District. While 70% transit mode-split has never been achieved, the share of downtown workers commuting by means other than single-occupancy vehicle now appears to surpass 70%.

The most recent commute mode information for workers with jobs located in the Downtown C-3 District is available at the census tract level, through the 20062010 ACS Census Transportation Planning Package (see Map 2). According to these figures, just over half (51.4%) of downtown workers commute via public transportation. This compares to 32.4% of all San Francisco residents, and 36.9% of individuals working in San Francisco. 27.4% of downtown workers drove alone to their jobs, 9.5% carpooled, and 6.6% walked.

In general, individuals who work in Downtown San Francisco are far more likely to take transit, and less likely to drive alone, to their jobs than their counterparts city, region, and nation-wide.

further, to 1.17 for downtown workers (Table 18).3 This figure is slightly less than that for all San Francisco workers (1.18) but still higher than the regional average (1.1 persons per vehicle). 4 Vehicle occupancy rates for workers and residents are now available from the 2012 (2008-2012) American Community Survey (ACS) for the City of San Francisco and the Bay Area. For smaller areas, such as the Downtown C-3 census tracts, information is only available for residents. These estimates however, continue to show a drop in average vehicle occupancy.

However, the decline in vehicle occupancy does not necessarily mean that more vehicles are entering downtown during peak hours. Census data shows the number of solo car commuters holding relatively steady since 2000, while the number of 2 and 3+ carpools declined. However, that decline is more than made up for by increases in transit use, biking, and working from home, suggesting that downtown workers who previously carpooled, may be switching to those modes.

Vehicle Occupancy Rate

Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF)

The Downtown Plan sought to increase ridesharing into downtown, with a goal of increasing vehicle occupancy from 1.48 persons per vehicle in 1985 when the Plan was adopted, to 1.66 persons per vehicle by the year 2000. indicative information is available for the census tracts that generally correspond to the zone (see Map 2).

In 1981, as a precursor to the Downtown Plan and responding to a substantial increase in downtown office development, San Francisco enacted a fee to recover a portion of additional transit operating and capital costs incurred by this growth. Initially, all new office developments were required to pay $5 per square foot of office space to cover the added transit service to downtown office buildings. In 2004, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) modified this fee to include all proposed non-residential developments in San Francisco.

The average vehicle occupancy for downtown workers has been declining steadily, mirroring nationwide trends. In 1980, five years before the Downtown Plan’s adoption, vehicle occupancy was 1.28 passengers per car. In 1990 it dropped to 1.22, and by the 2000 Census, vehicle occupancy had dropped to 1.21 for workers. The latest available data at this scale comes from the 2006-2010 ACS Census Transportation Planning Package, which shows vehicle occupancy falling even

San Francisco has collected about $9.9 million in TIDF revenues to date for fiscal year 2013-14 (Table 19). This is over double the amount collected in the previous fiscal year.

3 The vehicle occupancy rate is the average number of individuals riding in a vehicle. The lowest possible rate is 1, where all vehicles are single occupant.

4 These rates are for commute trips to work and do not necessarily reflect peak period patterns.

12

Fort Mason

S A N

S

E

BA Y BA

ST R

T

S

T

B Y

N D ST

03 R D ST

South Park

TH

S

IO

N

W

AR

D

H

R

IS

O

N

ST

B

R

AN

N

AN

ST

TO

W

N

SE

N

D

ST AT&T Park

China Basin

05 TH

M

ST

O

ST

ST

TH

LS

TH

0

ST

FO 10 TH

ST

TH

AR

07

OA K ST

12

ST

06

M

FE LL ST

IS

H

O

ST

RO ST

ST

S

T

C-3 Census Tracts

80 0

04

ST

City Hall

C-3 Zoning District

02

Yerba Buena Gardens

LA GU NA

DI VI SA DE

GR OV E

A

ST

A

E

E AL BE

M

BL VD

K

Moscone Center

Alamo Square

B

O

Union Square

GE AR Y

ER

Rincon Park

ST

BUSH ST

R

AD

ON ST

W OT H

ST

LE AV EN

RN IA CA LI FO

SS AV E VA N NE

Alta Plaza Park

Ferry Building Plaza

ST OC KT

ST OA DW AY

ID

RC

ST

GTON ST

WASHIN

BR

80

EM

ST

AV

ST

GO UG H

BU

E ST

M

F R A N CIS CO

E

LU

SA NS OM

O

OM ER Y

TA YL OR

RD ST

M ON TG

C LA RK IN

LO M BA

UT ST

G

CH ES TN

B

R

YA

N

T

0.5 Mile

ST

ST

10 101 10 01 1

KE

T

ST

03RD ST

M

AR

GUER RERO ST

Buena Vista Park

16TH ST

28 280

Central Basin

101

17TH ST

Map 2. C-3 Zone and corresponding Census Tracts

Table 18.

Average Vehicle Occupancy CTPP 2006-2010 Area San Francisco Downtown C-3 zoned census tracts Bay Area

Table 19. Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) Collections

ACS 2012*

Fiscal Year

Revenue

Workers

Residents

Workers

Residents

1.18

1.13

1.15

1.11

2011-12

$1,735,281

1.17

1.08

NA

1.11

2012-13

$4,574,916

1.10

1.10

1.08

1.08

2013-14*

$9,886,190

* ACS 2008-2012 estimates are subject to margins of error of around 0.02, therefore the difference since the 2010 Census may not be statistically significant.

Source: SFMTA, May 2014.

Source: US Census, Census Transportation Planning Package 2006-2010 and American Community Survey 2008-2012.

DO W N TO W N PL AN: AN N UAL M O N ITO R IN G R E PO R T 2 0 1 3

13

Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) and Public Art Presuming that significant employment and office development growth would occur, the Downtown Plan requires new commercial development to support associated urban service improvements, including specific programs for open space and art.

POPOS

Privately-owned public open spaces (POPOS) are publicly accessible spaces in forms of plazas, terraces, atriums, and small parks that are provided and maintained by private developers. In San Francisco, POPOS are mostly in the Downtown office district. Prior to 1985, developers provided POPOS under three general circumstances: voluntarily, in exchange for a density bonus, or as a condition of approval. The Downtown Plan created the first requirements for developers to provide publicly accessible open space as a part of projects in C-3 Districts. The goal was to provide quality open space in sufficient quantity and variety to meet the needs of downtown workers, residents and visitors.

Since then, project sponsors may provide POPOS instead of their required open spaces, and locate them in other districts such as Eastern Neighborhoods (Section 135 of the Planning Code).

Public Art

The public art requirement created by the Downtown Plan is commonly known as the “1% for Art� program.

Its purpose is to ensure that the public has access to a variety of high-quality art. This requirement, governed

by Section 429 of the Planning Code, provides that construction of a new building or addition of 25,000 square feet or more within the downtown C-3 district triggers a requirement to provide public art that equals at least 1% of the total construction cost. After more than 25 years since the adoption of the Downtown Plan, development has created an extensive outdoor gallery that enriches the Downtown environment for workers and tourists alike.

14

Table 20.

Number of Privately-Owned Public Open Space (POPOS) POPOS

< 1985

1985-2013

Total

In C-3 District

50

32

82

with Art

2

21

23

2

2

4

1

1

2

52

34

86

Outside C-3 District with Art TOTAL Source: SF Planning Department.

Development

In 2013, one new POPOS was opened, a plaza space in front of the newly completed 505-525 Howard Street. This brings the total number of POPOS in the Downtown C-3 district to 82. (Table 20).

Downtown development has added 32 POPOS since 1985, approximately 60% of which include public art.

The public art requirement has produced 39 pieces of art related to 31 development projects. With the economic recovery gathering strength, more POPOS and public art will be added in the future.

Acknowledgments Mayor Edwin M. Lee Board of Supervisors

Planning Commission

David Chiu, President John Avalos London Breed David Campos Malia Cohen Mark Farrell Jane Kim Eric Mar Katy Tang Scott Wiener Norman Yee

Cindy Wu, President Rodney Fong, Vice-President Michael J. Antonini Gwyneth Borden Rich Hillis Kathrin Moore Hisashi Sugaya

Planning Department John Rahaim, Planning Director Gil Kelley, Director of Citywide Planning Teresa Ojeda, Manager, Information & Analysis Group Paolo Ikezoe, Lead Planner Scott T. Edmondson, AICP, Project Manager Gary Chen, Graphic Designer Aksel Olsen, Planner Maria Oropeza-Mander, Administrative Assistant Data Sources: AC Transit Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Area Rapid Transit California Department of Finance California Employment Development Department Caltrain Cassidy Turley Costar Group Cushman & Wakefield Dun & Bradstreet San Francisco Controllerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office San Francisco Department of Building Inspection San Francisco Planning Department San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency Terranomics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Census Bureau

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT: Paolo Ikezoe San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco CA 94103-2479

E: paolo.ikezoe@sfgov.org T: 415.575.9137 F: 415.558.6409 W: http://www.sfplanning.org

NOTE: For additional information that is available on the Planning Department web site under the heading “Data and Analysis Reports,” please see previous reports (annual, five-year, and 25-year) at: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1663